What is fair price for nice oval with 80% total depth.

[Serg]

Please compare these 2 ovals.
Both ovals have almost same diameters and similar girdle shapes, Color,..
But the left oval has mass 1.51ct, when the right has just 1.2ct
(The left has 80% total depth and -19% spread, the right has +4% spread )
In same time the left looks much more brighter and crispy .
if both of them have same color and clarity which has to have bigger:
1) Price?
2) Price per carat?
https://cutwise.com/compare/diamond-colorless?id[]=37642&id[]=37643&m=false

 

[flyingpig]

The oval on the left looks similar to Opulent Oval by AV, except with steeper pavilion. I think there already is fair price for such cut, mainly set by AV and its customers. Since this particular oval has better optical symmetry than opulent AV, I say whatever AV charges for its Opulent Oval + 2~5%.

 

[KKJohnson]

So this is like you are comparing a Super Ideal cut oval to an 8 main pavilion facet (B), both are really nice but one is arguably cut better than the other. We have learned with AVO (which are the only super ideal cut ovals that I know of) they are cut with more depth resulting in less face up spread, this helps eliminate the dreaded "bow-tie" effect that most ovals suffer from.



Both of the stones you have picked are very nice and if not comparing to the left the right is a very nice example of what to look for in a main stream oval. Super Ideal cuts have alot more technology and technique invested so the price is going to be higher, its isn't like comparing apples to apples in this case.

https://www.augustvintageinc.net/co...ducts/1-5ct-g-si1-august-vintage-oval-1649420

 

[tyty333]

Back several months again, I compared the face-up size of an AV oval to the equivalent face-up size of a super ideal branded round brilliant (same color/clarity
but of course different carat weight). The prices ended up being similar. I thought that was fair. Granted this was only 1 comparison so big
grain of salt. I'm speaking specifically about the cost of the stone on the left which looks quite nice. However, people, specifically the ones that have been
on Pricescope looking for ovals, dont usually want to give up that much spread even for a stone that has great light return (unfortunately).

 

[OcnGypZ]

Don't have an answer, but I wouldn't pay a thin dime for the stone on the right.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

There is a difference in Color and Clarity. I think for the exercise it should be assumed both are G VS2.
Regarding the weight difference, if it was 1.10 compared to 1.40ct for example - then the price difference would be lessened.
And another consideration - the fact that in some cases a diamond cutter would be able to make a stone achieve a magic weight, like 1.00 1.50 2.00 and people will always pay more for that number.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Interesting discussion Serg!!
I've found that dealers, by and large, don't understand cut to any great degree in the way that members of this forum do- so they look at a high depth like 80% and discount based on that number- regardless of Light Performance.
I can understand why people here on Pricescope will "trash" the stone on the right- but it might be a good looking stone in person. Such stones are harder to assess with photos/video.
Likely, based on this, in the NY market, the 1.51 would discount more than other, less deep stones off the 1.51ct list.
The 1.2 would trade a bit higher than other 1.00-1.10ct ovals- but still, trade far less than the net price of the 1.51ct.......
The 1.2 might be a great deal for many buyers.

 

[Rockdiamond]

A few more thoughts:
If both stones were shown to a buyer the 1.2 will easily be the choice in many cases due the fact it faces up as large as the much more costly 1.5

Many stones cut like the 1.2 will not have a bow tie.
Although the LP of the deeper stone would be preferable to many on the forum, it would likely be a more profitable stone for the cutter.
I bring this up because many discussions frame the cutter as greedy if they cut stones which get knocked for LP that does not look “Ideal” here.
In many casss it’s the other way around.

 

[Karl_K]

0 because I would not buy either one.
Modifying a design from a e-w bowtie to a very strong n-s arrows that draw light from 90 degrees that spit the stone in 2 is not an advance in diamond beauty.
Patterns count!

 

[flyingpig]

Oval Brilliants leak light. Elongated cut diamonds leak light (with the exception of good emerald cut diamonds). It is just how they behave and I adore it.
While I appreciate and understand the effort to make an elongated cut diamond perform like a super ideal MRB, it often requires heavy modification on the pavilion side and costs too much spread.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

0 because I would not buy either one.
Modifying a design from a e-w bowtie to a very strong n-s arrows that draw light from 90 degrees that spit the stone in 2 is not an advance in diamond beauty.
Patterns count!

Karl that is a monscopic cyclops view. In real life unless you close one eye you will not see the vertical star.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Super Ideal cuts have alot more technology and technique invested so the price is going to be higher, its isn't like comparing apples to apples in this case.

https://www.augustvintageinc.net/co...ducts/1-5ct-g-si1-august-vintage-oval-1649420

4.61 divided by 5.74 = 80.31% on my calculator. Not 65.6%. The Table is measured in the normal manner, so please apply same same.
We have seen this with BGD where vendors have chosen to use the average (L+W)/2 or the diagonal dimension divided into the depth.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Please compare these 2 ovals.
Both ovals have almost same diameters and similar girdle shapes, Color,..
But the left oval has mass 1.51ct, when the right has just 1.2ct
(The left has 80% total depth and -19% spread, the right has +4% spread )
In same time the left looks much more brighter and crispy .
if both of them have same color and clarity which has to have bigger:
1) Price?
2) Price per carat?
https://cutwise.com/compare/diamond-colorless?id[]=37642&id[]=37643&m=false

Sergey I would like to see a video of this stone rocking N-S by at least 10 degrees each way to ensure the top half does not go dark, then the bottom half goes dark - in my experience this is a problem with stones like this and it just looks bad.

 

[Karl_K]

Karl that is a monscopic cyclops view. In real life unless you close one eye you will not see the vertical star.

Garry i disagree. It is drawing light from 90 degrees and even if it was high aset blue it will be 2 eye visible as darker even at mid-range distances.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Super Ideal cuts have alot more technology and technique invested so the price is going to be higher, its isn't like comparing apples to apples in this case.

As opposed to an RBC, calling a fancy shaped lstone “super ideal” is more a brand name than an accepted standard. AGS is not usiing that term. With an RBC a super ideal needs to be a “triple zero” -and even that doesn’t qualify a stone as Super Ideal.
It’s not necessarily true tha t it costs more to cut such a stone- it’s basically done by computer. In general an 80% depth is considered extremely deep for an oval. This is generally done to save weight and increase profitability. There’s many oval designs that are not overly deep-so they face up with more spread, yet still have excellent light performance.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Garry i disagree. It is drawing light from 90 degrees and even if it was high aset blue it will be 2 eye visible as darker even at mid-range distances.

Sergey can you show this stone with a few degrees of tilt to replicate what each eye would see please? In realistic or ASET.

 

[Serg]

Sergey can you show this stone with a few degrees of tilt to replicate what each eye would see please? In realistic or ASET.

Garry, Sorry we have not more this oval with us. We received it just for one day. I am going to ask similar diamond

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Hi Sergey,

I have the impression (correct me if I am wrong) that your question and its intent are misunderstood. I cannot imagine your question being about two specific diamonds, and any answer related to these specific example-diamonds do not serve your purpose.

If my feeling is correct, please allow me to rephrase your original question. If I am misunderstanding, please correct me. Here is what I think your question is:

- Here are two diamonds, for reference-purposes, let us call them left and right.
- Both have similar surface-area, thus present equally big to a consumer.
- Left has better performance, in short: looks a lot better.
- However, left weighs about 25% more, and has a total depth of 80%, which is a deterrent for buyers (consumers and professionals both).

Question: How would you value these, as a consumer? In total dollar-price. Equal, left higher or right higher?

Translated into dollar per Ct., how would you value these? Equal, left higher or right higher?

For sure, I would be interested to see these questions answered. Not related to further detail-analysis of the examples.

Am I on the right track?

Live long,

 

[Serg]

Hi Paul,
Yes, you understood correctly my question. It is not very important that diamonds we consider.
For example we could consider emeralds . The question: How to define a premium for better performance and a discount for negative spread ?

 

[OoohShiny]

If I may be so bold as to attempt to distill the question further are we asking something like:

If buyers are willing to sacrifice (quantitative) spread for (qualitative) 'beauty', how do we price 'beauty'?

(And how do we define a qualitative 'beauty' in a quantitative way?!)

 

[Serg]

If I may be so bold as to attempt to distill the question further are we asking something like:

If buyers are willing to sacrifice (quantitative) spread for (qualitative) 'beauty', how do we price 'beauty'?

(And how do we define a qualitative 'beauty' in a quantitative way?!)

Very often a diamond could have better spread and performance in same time than other diamond.

https://cutwise.com/~wDFl

What is premium in such case?

What is fair a price difference between the diamonds, that will motivate consumers from one side to buy better diamonds and manufactures produce its from other side, and retail to promote its from third side,...

 

[tyty333]

The 80% depth would not bother me (as a number) ...the extra $$$ associated with the extra depth would be what hurts!

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

I think we are still confusing one another.

If Right costs $5,000.-, what would you be willing to pay for Left?

Weight-difference is 25% more for Left:

- Do you wish to pay 'same price, $5,000.-' for Left? It means, per Ct., far lower price for Left.
- Do you wish to pay 10% more for Left? It means, per Ct., still lower price for Left.
- Do you wish to pay 25% more for Left? Price/Ct. is the same.
- Do you not care for Right and wish to pay 'any-price' for Left? That is interesting ...

Live long,

 

[diamondhoarder]

I like excellent light performance, but not at the expense of spread to that degree. When shopping for fancies I look for the best balance/combination of light performance and spread I can find for the money. So I personally wouldn't want to pay a premium for a stone with 80% depth if I thought that I could find something with almost as good performance and a smaller depth which allows for a bigger face-up.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Trying again. The surface area of both stones is equal. Exactly the same. What you see in surface is the same.

Left looks better.

What do you want to pay for Left, compared to Right?

More, less, or the same amount?

Live long,

 

[gm89uk]

I want to pay less, I'd be lucky to pay the same amount but inevitably I'd pay more.

 

[meely]

Around 15%, is what I would be willing to pay. It have not calculated the premium I paid for my AV oval but it may well have been more.

 

[Serg]

I want to pay less, I'd be lucky to pay the same amount but inevitably I'd pay more.

Are speaking about price per diamond or price per carat?

 

[gm89uk]

@Serg , price/carat ultimately. I'd have to pay more per carat to have the same spread with better light performance.

I was referring to @Paul-Antwerp reply.

 

[Rhino]

Hi Sergey, Garry & friends,

Thank you for making this thread. Just some comments/answers/clarifications.

The oval on the left looks similar to Opulent Oval by AV, except with steeper pavilion. I think there already is fair price for such cut, mainly set by AV and its customers. Since this particular oval has better optical symmetry than opulent AV, I say whatever AV charges for its Opulent Oval + 2~5%.

Nope, it's Elyque flyingpig.

Garry i disagree. It is drawing light from 90 degrees and even if it was high aset blue it will be 2 eye visible as darker even at mid-range distances.

I'm not sure exactly how many you've held in your hand to examine and compare but I can tell you this is not the case. Just as you don't see dark arrows when you look at an H&A which are dark blue in ASET neither do you see it in these ovals. I know because that was my first concern. If it happens it's a rarity and not the norm. I have this shown in multiple videos and images I've posted on my channels. Of course there are reflections of head/body shadow that provide contrast but nothing like what you're making it. If you'd like to see one live I'd be happy to send to you Karl. I agree with your statment ... "patterning is important"!

@Paul-Antwerp thanks for clarifying. To me the question is identical to ... how much more would you pay for the diamond on the left than the diamond on the right?

The diamond on the right has more surface area than the diamond on the left but at the expense of optics and is not Ideal Cut. It has extraneous leakage and color absorption. The diamond on the left costs notably more but radically different in appearance even though it is smaller in comparison for the weight. How much more do you pay for it?